Joint space measurement in centric occlusionbetween panoramic temporomandibularjoint radiography and cone-beam computedtomography: a comparison in patientswith clicking disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Patients with temporomandibular disorder (TMD) commonly experience clicking.Measuring the joint space between the condyle and glenoid fossa can assist a dentist in determining potential cause of this pathological anomaly.Initial examination of temporomandibular joint (TMJ) osseous structure can be performed with panoramic temporomandibular joint radiography (PanTMJ) that has a lower radiation and cost than conebeam computed tomography (CBCT).Objectives: The aim of this study was to quantitatively assess the difference in joint space measurement between PanTMJ and CBCT among patients with clicking in centric occlusion. Material and methods:The study included thirty-four patients diagnosed with clicking in at least one of the TMJs.Patients underwent PanTMJ and CBCT in centric occlusion position, following clinical examination.Anterior joint space (AJS), superior joint space (SJS), and posterior joint space (PJS) were measured.Mann-Whitney test was applied to examine differences between PanTMJ and CBCT joint space measurements, while Wilcoxon test was used to compare differences between right and left joint space. Results:The results showed significant differences (p < 0.05) in AJS, SJS, and PJS between PanTMJ and CBCT.The width of joint space in PanTMJ tended to be underestimated compared with that in CBCT.With the exception of AJS in Pan TMJ (p < 0.05), there was no statistically significant difference between the right and left condyle space in any radiography technique (p > 0.05). Conclusions:The results of the current study show that joint space measurements on PanTMJ cannot be compared with those on CBCT.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".